f



What Will The Future Look Like? WAS: Where Will The Future Look Like?

Now that is an interesting question.  Consider that 20 years ago the
Mac had just been launched, color monitors were the exception, and
there were no networks to speak of, much less the Internet.  Single
process CPUs ran 16 bit code at 20-30 mhz, a megabyte was all the ram
you needed, and 40 mb hard drives were state of the art technology.
Modems ran at a blazing 14.4 speed, and the floppy disk was the
standard for file transfer.

Twenty years from now?  Information will be everywhere.  Books in
libraries will be as obsolete as the horse and buggy.  The entire
accumulated knowledge of mankind will be searchable online.  An
overhauled Internet will hold the operator of every connected machine
accountable for what they do on the net.  Today's LCD will become a
wall in the home, carrying entertainment and other content piped in by
a 100 terrabit connection running through a $100 60 ghz appliance with
10 tb of ram.  To create a document you will use voice recognition for
the text, and drag and drop the design and art elements from a truly
massive online library.  The PC as we know it today will no longer
exist, replaced by home and portable appliances as different as the
Mac Mini of today is from a G5 or Dell desktop.

Apple will be part of Pixar, and the only function allowed of a Mac OS
appliance will be to play the programming and music of that company.
Pixar, in turn will have merged 90% of the movie, recording and TV
business under its control.  Actors and musicians will no longer
exist, having been replaced by animation so real that the public
cannot tell the difference.

Microsoft will be a government-owned monopoly, and will control the
dissemination of news and information to the U.S., and most of the
rest of the world too!  It will also control searches, eliminating all
access to criticism of the government and itself.  

Yes, the world will be a wonderful, peaceful, entertaining, place.
I'm sure that any of you can add to this vision.
0
tom_elam (3218)
5/27/2005 7:21:55 PM
comp.sys.mac.advocacy 34242 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

26 Replies
781 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 52

In article <43re9114r9o07on2rmkvh49dvmntsvuv0i@4ax.com>,
 Tom Elam <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Now that is an interesting question.  Consider that 20 years ago the
> Mac had just been launched, color monitors were the exception, and
> there were no networks to speak of, much less the Internet.  Single
> process CPUs ran 16 bit code at 20-30 mhz, a megabyte was all the ram
> you needed, and 40 mb hard drives were state of the art technology.
> Modems ran at a blazing 14.4 speed, and the floppy disk was the
> standard for file transfer.


Maybe some day Tommy will think one step further down this path.

20 years ago, Macs had simple networking out of the box. PCs didn't.

20 years ago, Macs had a GUI. PCs didn't.

20 years ago, Macs had PnP. PCs didn't.

20 years ago, Macs were 32 bit, PCs weren't.

Essentially, the future of PCs is what Macs are doing today.
0
Nowhere (5224)
5/27/2005 7:51:53 PM
On Fri, 27 May 2005 19:51:53 GMT, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com>
wrote:

>In article <43re9114r9o07on2rmkvh49dvmntsvuv0i@4ax.com>,
> Tom Elam <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Now that is an interesting question.  Consider that 20 years ago the
>> Mac had just been launched, color monitors were the exception, and
>> there were no networks to speak of, much less the Internet.  Single
>> process CPUs ran 16 bit code at 20-30 mhz, a megabyte was all the ram
>> you needed, and 40 mb hard drives were state of the art technology.
>> Modems ran at a blazing 14.4 speed, and the floppy disk was the
>> standard for file transfer.
>
>
>Maybe some day Tommy will think one step further down this path.
>20 years ago, Macs had simple networking out of the box. PCs didn't.
>20 years ago, Macs had a GUI. PCs didn't.
>20 years ago, Macs had PnP. PCs didn't.
>20 years ago, Macs were 32 bit, PCs weren't.
>Essentially, the future of PCs is what Macs are doing today.

Joe, Macs are already doing what today's Macs will do, and doing it
for more people, and in more places.

You are also not only stupid, you do not even know your basic history.
Twenty years ago was 1985.  The Mac of 1985 was the 512k, and here are
the technical specs:

Macintosh 512k
Codename: Fat Mac
CPU: Motorola MC68000
CPU Speed: 8 MHz (the 386dx ran at 20mhz)
FPU: none
Bus Speed: 8 MHz
Data Path: 16 bit
ROM: 64 kB
Onboard RAM: 512 kB
Maximum RAM: 512 kB (the AT had a full meg)
Monitor: 9" built-in
Maximum Resolution: 1 bit 512x342
Floppy Drive: 3.5" 400 kB (the AT had a 20 mb hard drive)
Serial: 2 (the AT also had a parallel port)
Speaker(s): mono 8 bit
Power: 60 Watts
Weight: 16.5 lbs.
Dimensions: 13.6" H x 9.6" W x 10.9" D
Minimum OS: System 1.1/Finder 1.1g
Maximum OS: System 4.1/Finder 5.5
Introduced: September 1984
Terminated: April 1986

IIRC, 32 bit, and it was not pure 32 bit at that, CPUs did not come
along until sometime in 1987, and the Mac II.

I don't remember that the 512k had networking over its serial ports,
but maybe it did. I seem to remember that networking came along in
1987 with System 3.2 and AppleShare.

I also remember that most peripherals on the 512k had to have device
drivers installed until NuBus came along, also in the Mac II and in
1987.

In summary, the only advantage that the original Mac has was the GUI,
and it was not able to run more than one program at a time.

You are right, Apple had the rest of those things before DOS and
Windows, but not 20 years ago, more like 18.

In any event, as Bill gates once said to Steve Jobs wrt to his
statement that "Our technology is better", "You don't understand, that
doesn't matter."


0
tom_elam (3218)
5/27/2005 9:20:26 PM
In article <43re9114r9o07on2rmkvh49dvmntsvuv0i@4ax.com>,
 Tom Elam <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Now that is an interesting question.  Consider that 20 years ago the
> Mac had just been launched, color monitors were the exception, and
> there were no networks to speak of, much less the Internet.  Single
> process CPUs ran 16 bit code at 20-30 mhz, a megabyte was all the ram
> you needed, and 40 mb hard drives were state of the art technology.
> Modems ran at a blazing 14.4 speed, and the floppy disk was the
> standard for file transfer.
> 
> Twenty years from now?  Information will be everywhere.  Books in
> libraries will be as obsolete as the horse and buggy. 

That happens when each successive generation is more and more 
illiterate. A trend which has been going-on for some time now.


> The entire
> accumulated knowledge of mankind will be searchable online. 

By the elite who are educated enough to use it.


> An overhauled Internet will hold the operator of every connected machine
> accountable for what they do on the net.  Today's LCD will become a
> wall in the home, carrying entertainment and other content piped in by
> a 100 terrabit connection running through a $100 60 ghz appliance with
> 10 tb of ram.  To create a document you will use voice recognition for
> the text, and drag and drop the design and art elements from a truly
> massive online library.  The PC as we know it today will no longer
> exist, replaced by home and portable appliances as different as the
> Mac Mini of today is from a G5 or Dell desktop.
> 
> Apple will be part of Pixar, and the only function allowed of a Mac OS
> appliance will be to play the programming and music of that company.
> Pixar, in turn will have merged 90% of the movie, recording and TV
> business under its control.  Actors and musicians will no longer
> exist, having been replaced by animation so real that the public
> cannot tell the difference.
> 
> Microsoft will be a government-owned monopoly, and will control the
> dissemination of news and information to the U.S., and most of the
> rest of the world too!  It will also control searches, eliminating all
> access to criticism of the government and itself.  
> 
> Yes, the world will be a wonderful, peaceful, entertaining, place.
> I'm sure that any of you can add to this vision.

The world will be a terrible place and except for the educated and the 
technocrats, computers will be irrelevant. The USA will complete it's 
metamorphosis from country into corporation. There will be only two 
classes of people, the very rich and the very poor. The rich will 
continue to enjoy the good life as they always have, and the poor will 
have no hope, no say in the world because there will be no jobs; all of 
them having been exported off-shore to places like China, the 
middle-east and Africa. There will be food shortages, fuel shortages, 
and not enough housing. The population of US cities will be so high that 
as many as three families will be living in every two-bedroom apartment. 
The Pacific Northwest will be all oriental, the Southwest all Hispanic, 
the east coast will be Cuban and an Puerto Rican, and what remains of 
the Anglo population will be squeezed into the center of the country.  
There will be very little new construction because the poor won't be 
able to afford decent housing and the rich won't need it because they'll 
live in gated communities wherever they like. The infrastructure will be 
in an advanced state of collapse because the states won't be able to 
afford to fix it (no jobs, no taxes. No taxes, no money to do anything 
other than pay the exorbitant salaries at the top of government). Heck, 
in CA, we're almost there now. Very bleak times are ahead, and there's 
nothing that can be done about it.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
A sports car makes the journey more fun than the destination.

0
gmgravesnos (8642)
5/27/2005 9:26:33 PM
In article <3v1f91diuf8jmh6f094uq9q1edi47djl93@4ax.com>,
 Tom Elam <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 27 May 2005 19:51:53 GMT, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >In article <43re9114r9o07on2rmkvh49dvmntsvuv0i@4ax.com>,
> > Tom Elam <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Now that is an interesting question.  Consider that 20 years ago the
> >> Mac had just been launched, color monitors were the exception, and
> >> there were no networks to speak of, much less the Internet.  Single
> >> process CPUs ran 16 bit code at 20-30 mhz, a megabyte was all the ram
> >> you needed, and 40 mb hard drives were state of the art technology.
> >> Modems ran at a blazing 14.4 speed, and the floppy disk was the
> >> standard for file transfer.
> >
> >
> >Maybe some day Tommy will think one step further down this path.
> >20 years ago, Macs had simple networking out of the box. PCs didn't.
> >20 years ago, Macs had a GUI. PCs didn't.
> >20 years ago, Macs had PnP. PCs didn't.
> >20 years ago, Macs were 32 bit, PCs weren't.
> >Essentially, the future of PCs is what Macs are doing today.
> 
> Joe, Macs are already doing what today's Macs will do, and doing it
> for more people, and in more places.

That's true. What's wrong with my statement?

> 
> You are also not only stupid, you do not even know your basic history.

So what part of the above history is wrong?

You will undoubtedly quibble that the Mac wasn't truly 32 bit, but it 
was close enough for almost everyone - far closer than anything PC users 
could use at the time.
0
Nowhere (5224)
5/27/2005 10:01:54 PM
On Fri, 27 May 2005 22:01:54 GMT, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com>
wrote:

>> Joe, Macs are already doing what today's Macs will do, and doing it
>> for more people, and in more places.
>
>That's true. What's wrong with my statement?
>
Nothing, my statement was supposed to read

Joe, Wintel PC's are already doing what today's Macs will do, and
doing it for more people, and in more places.

>> 
>> You are also not only stupid, you do not even know your basic history.
>
>So what part of the above history is wrong?

The dates.  The semi-32 bit Mac with basic connectivity and limited
Plug and Play did not arrive until 1987-88.

>
>You will undoubtedly quibble that the Mac wasn't truly 32 bit, but it 
>was close enough for almost everyone - far closer than anything PC users 
>could use at the time.

The 386 arrived in 1985, and was a true 32 bit CPU that would multi
process.  It was on the market a full 2 years ahead of the Mac II.

http://www.pcmech.com/show/processors/35/

That's what you got wrong.  Get over it. 
0
tom_elam (3218)
5/27/2005 11:04:26 PM
On Fri, 27 May 2005 22:01:54 GMT, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com>
wrote:

>In article <3v1f91diuf8jmh6f094uq9q1edi47djl93@4ax.com>,
> Tom Elam <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 May 2005 19:51:53 GMT, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >In article <43re9114r9o07on2rmkvh49dvmntsvuv0i@4ax.com>,
>> > Tom Elam <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Now that is an interesting question.  Consider that 20 years ago the
>> >> Mac had just been launched, color monitors were the exception, and
>> >> there were no networks to speak of, much less the Internet.  Single
>> >> process CPUs ran 16 bit code at 20-30 mhz, a megabyte was all the ram
>> >> you needed, and 40 mb hard drives were state of the art technology.
>> >> Modems ran at a blazing 14.4 speed, and the floppy disk was the
>> >> standard for file transfer.
>> >
>> >
>> >Maybe some day Tommy will think one step further down this path.
>> >20 years ago, Macs had simple networking out of the box. PCs didn't.
>> >20 years ago, Macs had a GUI. PCs didn't.
>> >20 years ago, Macs had PnP. PCs didn't.
>> >20 years ago, Macs were 32 bit, PCs weren't.
>> >Essentially, the future of PCs is what Macs are doing today.
>> 
>> Joe, Macs are already doing what today's Macs will do, and doing it
>> for more people, and in more places.
>
>That's true. What's wrong with my statement?
>
>> 
>> You are also not only stupid, you do not even know your basic history.
>
>So what part of the above history is wrong?
>
>You will undoubtedly quibble that the Mac wasn't truly 32 bit, but it 
>was close enough for almost everyone - far closer than anything PC users 
>could use at the time.


Of course, the travesty in all this was that while the 386 and 486
were capable of running a 32 bit system, it was 2000 before Microsoft
actually got a 32 bit consumer OS on the market.  If you want to
complain about something, use that.
0
tom_elam (3218)
5/28/2005 12:44:42 AM
On Fri, 27 May 2005 21:26:33 GMT, George Graves
<gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

>
>The world will be a terrible place and except for the educated and the 
>technocrats, computers will be irrelevant. The USA will complete it's 
>metamorphosis from country into corporation. There will be only two 
>classes of people, the very rich and the very poor. The rich will 
>continue to enjoy the good life as they always have, and the poor will 
>have no hope, no say in the world because there will be no jobs; all of 
>them having been exported off-shore to places like China, the 
>middle-east and Africa. There will be food shortages, fuel shortages, 
>and not enough housing. The population of US cities will be so high that 
>as many as three families will be living in every two-bedroom apartment. 
>The Pacific Northwest will be all oriental, the Southwest all Hispanic, 
>the east coast will be Cuban and an Puerto Rican, and what remains of 
>the Anglo population will be squeezed into the center of the country.  
>There will be very little new construction because the poor won't be 
>able to afford decent housing and the rich won't need it because they'll 
>live in gated communities wherever they like. The infrastructure will be 
>in an advanced state of collapse because the states won't be able to 
>afford to fix it (no jobs, no taxes. No taxes, no money to do anything 
>other than pay the exorbitant salaries at the top of government). Heck, 
>in CA, we're almost there now. Very bleak times are ahead, and there's 
>nothing that can be done about it.
>
>-- 
>George Graves

OK George, take a deep breath, step away from the computer, go to the
medicine chest, get out one of the little pills the doctor gave you,
take it, and go lie down until you feel better.  Or better yet, get
the heck out of California.  Do not pass go, do not bother to collect
$200, just GET OUT.
0
tom_elam (3218)
5/28/2005 12:48:17 AM
In article <3v1f91diuf8jmh6f094uq9q1edi47djl93@4ax.com>,
 Tom Elam <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 27 May 2005 19:51:53 GMT, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >In article <43re9114r9o07on2rmkvh49dvmntsvuv0i@4ax.com>,
> > Tom Elam <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Now that is an interesting question.  Consider that 20 years ago the
> >> Mac had just been launched, color monitors were the exception, and
> >> there were no networks to speak of, much less the Internet.  Single
> >> process CPUs ran 16 bit code at 20-30 mhz, a megabyte was all the ram
> >> you needed, and 40 mb hard drives were state of the art technology.
> >> Modems ran at a blazing 14.4 speed, and the floppy disk was the
> >> standard for file transfer.
> >
> >
> >Maybe some day Tommy will think one step further down this path.
> >20 years ago, Macs had simple networking out of the box. PCs didn't.
> >20 years ago, Macs had a GUI. PCs didn't.
> >20 years ago, Macs had PnP. PCs didn't.
> >20 years ago, Macs were 32 bit, PCs weren't.
> >Essentially, the future of PCs is what Macs are doing today.
> 
> Joe, Macs are already doing what today's Macs will do, and doing it
> for more people, and in more places.
> 
> You are also not only stupid, you do not even know your basic history.
> Twenty years ago was 1985.  The Mac of 1985 was the 512k, and here are
> the technical specs:
> 
> Macintosh 512k
> Codename: Fat Mac
> CPU: Motorola MC68000
> CPU Speed: 8 MHz (the 386dx ran at 20mhz)
> FPU: none
> Bus Speed: 8 MHz
> Data Path: 16 bit
> ROM: 64 kB
> Onboard RAM: 512 kB
> Maximum RAM: 512 kB (the AT had a full meg)
> Monitor: 9" built-in
> Maximum Resolution: 1 bit 512x342
> Floppy Drive: 3.5" 400 kB (the AT had a 20 mb hard drive)
> Serial: 2 (the AT also had a parallel port)
> Speaker(s): mono 8 bit
> Power: 60 Watts
> Weight: 16.5 lbs.
> Dimensions: 13.6" H x 9.6" W x 10.9" D
> Minimum OS: System 1.1/Finder 1.1g
> Maximum OS: System 4.1/Finder 5.5
> Introduced: September 1984
> Terminated: April 1986
> 
> IIRC, 32 bit, and it was not pure 32 bit at that, CPUs did not come
> along until sometime in 1987, and the Mac II.
> 
> I don't remember that the 512k had networking over its serial ports,
> but maybe it did. I seem to remember that networking came along in
> 1987 with System 3.2 and AppleShare.

The Fat Mac didn't, neither did the Mac Plus, IIRC, but the SE did.
> 
> I also remember that most peripherals on the 512k had to have device
> drivers installed until NuBus came along, also in the Mac II and in
> 1987.

What peripherals? There wasn't even a hard disk available. Every 
application floppy(400K) had it's own system folder on it. Yet it was 
miles ahead of DOS and CPM.

> In summary, the only advantage that the original Mac has was the GUI,
> and it was not able to run more than one program at a time.

And DOS was?

> > You are right, Apple had the rest of those things before DOS and
> Windows, but not 20 years ago, more like 18.
> 
> In any event, as Bill gates once said to Steve Jobs wrt to his
> statement that "Our technology is better", "You don't understand, that
> doesn't matter."

Gates also said "Make Windows like the Mac. I want Windows to be just 
like the Mac." He never got his wish.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
A sports car makes the journey more fun than the destination.

0
gmgravesnos (8642)
5/28/2005 1:30:50 AM
In article <sf9f91lqu34fevpauso0p1vifk86qrlq94@4ax.com>,
 Tom Elam <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 27 May 2005 22:01:54 GMT, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >> Joe, Macs are already doing what today's Macs will do, and doing it
> >> for more people, and in more places.
> >
> >That's true. What's wrong with my statement?
> >
> Nothing, my statement was supposed to read
> 
> Joe, Wintel PC's are already doing what today's Macs will do, and
> doing it for more people, and in more places.
> 
> >> 
> >> You are also not only stupid, you do not even know your basic history.
> >
> >So what part of the above history is wrong?
> 
> The dates.  The semi-32 bit Mac with basic connectivity and limited
> Plug and Play did not arrive until 1987-88.
> 
> >
> >You will undoubtedly quibble that the Mac wasn't truly 32 bit, but it 
> >was close enough for almost everyone - far closer than anything PC users 
> >could use at the time.
> 
> The 386 arrived in 1985, and was a true 32 bit CPU that would multi
> process.  It was on the market a full 2 years ahead of the Mac II.

And of course, Gates and Company had an OS ready that would take 
advantage of that, right? No? Wait a minute, it was 1995 before MS had a 
desktop OS that would take advantage of that.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
A sports car makes the journey more fun than the destination.

0
gmgravesnos (8642)
5/28/2005 1:33:49 AM
On Sat, 28 May 2005 01:33:49 GMT, George Graves
<gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

>In article <sf9f91lqu34fevpauso0p1vifk86qrlq94@4ax.com>,
> Tom Elam <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 May 2005 22:01:54 GMT, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >> Joe, Macs are already doing what today's Macs will do, and doing it
>> >> for more people, and in more places.
>> >
>> >That's true. What's wrong with my statement?
>> >
>> Nothing, my statement was supposed to read
>> 
>> Joe, Wintel PC's are already doing what today's Macs will do, and
>> doing it for more people, and in more places.
>> 
>> >> 
>> >> You are also not only stupid, you do not even know your basic history.
>> >
>> >So what part of the above history is wrong?
>> 
>> The dates.  The semi-32 bit Mac with basic connectivity and limited
>> Plug and Play did not arrive until 1987-88.
>> 
>> >
>> >You will undoubtedly quibble that the Mac wasn't truly 32 bit, but it 
>> >was close enough for almost everyone - far closer than anything PC users 
>> >could use at the time.
>> 
>> The 386 arrived in 1985, and was a true 32 bit CPU that would multi
>> process.  It was on the market a full 2 years ahead of the Mac II.
>
>And of course, Gates and Company had an OS ready that would take 
>advantage of that, right? No? Wait a minute, it was 1995 before MS had a 
>desktop OS that would take advantage of that.

Actually it was 2000 before they had a true 32 bit system.  Windows
2000 should have been named Windows 1992, after all OS2 was out by
then.


0
tom_elam (3218)
5/28/2005 2:05:38 AM
In article <sf9f91lqu34fevpauso0p1vifk86qrlq94@4ax.com>,
 Tom Elam <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 27 May 2005 22:01:54 GMT, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >> Joe, Macs are already doing what today's Macs will do, and doing it
> >> for more people, and in more places.
> >
> >That's true. What's wrong with my statement?
> >
> Nothing, my statement was supposed to read
> 
> Joe, Wintel PC's are already doing what today's Macs will do, and
> doing it for more people, and in more places.

Two out of three isn't bad.

They 'do it' for more people in more places, but they don't do what I 
expect from my Mac: offering the best computing platform available with 
the greatest ease of use and lowest level of malware.

> 
> >> 
> >> You are also not only stupid, you do not even know your basic history.
> >
> >So what part of the above history is wrong?
> 
> The dates.  The semi-32 bit Mac with basic connectivity and limited
> Plug and Play did not arrive until 1987-88.

Even if you were right, that's pretty close to 20 years. And that's a 
feature that Windows didn't get (sort of) until almost a decade later.

In reality, though, you're wrong. Even the SE offered connectivity and 
PnP (although the selection of peripherals was obviously rather limited).

> 
> >
> >You will undoubtedly quibble that the Mac wasn't truly 32 bit, but it 
> >was close enough for almost everyone - far closer than anything PC users 
> >could use at the time.
> 
> The 386 arrived in 1985, and was a true 32 bit CPU that would multi
> process.  It was on the market a full 2 years ahead of the Mac II.

That's nice. Windows 95 appeared in (let's see if you can figure this 
out) 1995 - and didn't even offer full 32 bit capability.

> 
> http://www.pcmech.com/show/processors/35/
> 
> That's what you got wrong.  Get over it. 

So you are arguing that a 386 running DOS was a 32 bit system? Or maybe 
a 386 running Windows 1.0?
0
Nowhere (5224)
5/28/2005 9:31:14 AM
In article <bkff91h10nopv24059o2j8dh7cl6ebi4gv@4ax.com>,
 Tom Elam <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 27 May 2005 22:01:54 GMT, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >In article <3v1f91diuf8jmh6f094uq9q1edi47djl93@4ax.com>,
> > Tom Elam <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 27 May 2005 19:51:53 GMT, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >In article <43re9114r9o07on2rmkvh49dvmntsvuv0i@4ax.com>,
> >> > Tom Elam <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Now that is an interesting question.  Consider that 20 years ago the
> >> >> Mac had just been launched, color monitors were the exception, and
> >> >> there were no networks to speak of, much less the Internet.  Single
> >> >> process CPUs ran 16 bit code at 20-30 mhz, a megabyte was all the ram
> >> >> you needed, and 40 mb hard drives were state of the art technology.
> >> >> Modems ran at a blazing 14.4 speed, and the floppy disk was the
> >> >> standard for file transfer.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Maybe some day Tommy will think one step further down this path.
> >> >20 years ago, Macs had simple networking out of the box. PCs didn't.
> >> >20 years ago, Macs had a GUI. PCs didn't.
> >> >20 years ago, Macs had PnP. PCs didn't.
> >> >20 years ago, Macs were 32 bit, PCs weren't.
> >> >Essentially, the future of PCs is what Macs are doing today.
> >> 
> >> Joe, Macs are already doing what today's Macs will do, and doing it
> >> for more people, and in more places.
> >
> >That's true. What's wrong with my statement?
> >
> >> 
> >> You are also not only stupid, you do not even know your basic history.
> >
> >So what part of the above history is wrong?
> >
> >You will undoubtedly quibble that the Mac wasn't truly 32 bit, but it 
> >was close enough for almost everyone - far closer than anything PC users 
> >could use at the time.
> 
> 
> Of course, the travesty in all this was that while the 386 and 486
> were capable of running a 32 bit system, it was 2000 before Microsoft
> actually got a 32 bit consumer OS on the market.  If you want to
> complain about something, use that.

I just did.

From 1987 to 2000 (or 1995 to be generous), Macs had 32 bit systems - 
Windows didn't. That's exactly what I said and you were making a fool of 
yourself by claiming I was wrong.
0
Nowhere (5224)
5/28/2005 9:32:22 AM
In article <43re9114r9o07on2rmkvh49dvmntsvuv0i@4ax.com>,
 Tom Elam <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Twenty years from now?  Information will be everywhere.  Books in
> libraries will be as obsolete as the horse and buggy.

In Republican US maybe. (how many libraries have closed since 2000 
anyway?)

>  The entire
> accumulated knowledge of mankind will be searchable online.

And all they'll be searching for are booby pix of the next britney 
spears..

>  An
> overhauled Internet will hold the operator of every connected machine
> accountable for what they do on the net. 

Only if Linux succeeds at killing windows.

> Today's LCD will become a
> wall in the home, carrying entertainment and other content piped in by
> a 100 terrabit connection running through a $100 60 ghz appliance with
> 10 tb of ram.

Only for those who can afford it.

>  To create a document you will use voice recognition for
> the text,

Cumbersome and tiring. Typing is faster and more accurate.

> Apple will be part of Pixar, and the only function allowed of a Mac OS
> appliance will be to play the programming and music of that company.

BS

> Pixar, in turn will have merged 90% of the movie, recording and TV
> business under its control.

Also BS. Mind you, this would mean a massive improvement in the 
quality of the output from Hollywood, so I wouldn't really mind if it 
were the case.

>  Actors and musicians will no longer
> exist, having been replaced by animation so real that the public
> cannot tell the difference.

This is actually possible - if not probable.

> Microsoft will be a government-owned monopoly, 

It'll be the other way around, actually.

>and will control the
> dissemination of news and information to the U.S.

This is not unlikely.

>, and most of the
> rest of the world too! 

But this is BS. The rest of the world will mostly be running Linux and 
will forever be outside the reach of MS.

> It will also control searches, eliminating all
> access to criticism of the government and itself.  

> Yes, the world will be a wonderful, peaceful, entertaining, place.
> I'm sure that any of you can add to this vision.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
5/28/2005 9:57:48 AM
In article 
<gmgravesnos-EB476B.18305327052005@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
 George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Gates also said "Make Windows like the Mac. I want Windows to be just 
> like the Mac." He never got his wish.

He might succeed some day, though. Sooner or later, Windows will catch 
up to MacOS 9. ;)

> -- 
> George Graves

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
5/28/2005 9:59:46 AM
In article <clund-B253A0.11574828052005@amstwist00.chello.com>,
 C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:

> In article <43re9114r9o07on2rmkvh49dvmntsvuv0i@4ax.com>,
>  Tom Elam <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> > Twenty years from now?  Information will be everywhere.  Books in
> > libraries will be as obsolete as the horse and buggy.
> 
> In Republican US maybe. (how many libraries have closed since 2000 
> anyway?)

I don't know. How many?

In my town, they haven't closed any. In fact, they announced a new 
branch not that long ago.
0
Nowhere (5224)
5/28/2005 10:43:58 AM
In article <clund-B7A4DC.11594628052005@amstwist00.chello.com>,
 C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:

> In article 
> <gmgravesnos-EB476B.18305327052005@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > Gates also said "Make Windows like the Mac. I want Windows to be just 
> > like the Mac." He never got his wish.
> 
> He might succeed some day, though. Sooner or later, Windows will catch 
> up to MacOS 9. ;)
> 
> > -- 
> > George Graves

I doubt it.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
A sports car makes the journey more fun than the destination.

0
gmgravesnos (8642)
5/28/2005 8:18:58 PM
George Graves wrote:

> In article <sf9f91lqu34fevpauso0p1vifk86qrlq94@4ax.com>,
>  Tom Elam <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Fri, 27 May 2005 22:01:54 GMT, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Joe, Macs are already doing what today's Macs will do, and doing it
>>>>for more people, and in more places.
>>>
>>>That's true. What's wrong with my statement?
>>>
>>
>>Nothing, my statement was supposed to read
>>
>>Joe, Wintel PC's are already doing what today's Macs will do, and
>>doing it for more people, and in more places.
>>
>>
>>>>You are also not only stupid, you do not even know your basic history.
>>>
>>>So what part of the above history is wrong?
>>
>>The dates.  The semi-32 bit Mac with basic connectivity and limited
>>Plug and Play did not arrive until 1987-88.
>>
>>
>>>You will undoubtedly quibble that the Mac wasn't truly 32 bit, but it 
>>>was close enough for almost everyone - far closer than anything PC users 
>>>could use at the time.
>>
>>The 386 arrived in 1985, and was a true 32 bit CPU that would multi
>>process.  It was on the market a full 2 years ahead of the Mac II.
> 
> 
> And of course, Gates and Company had an OS ready that would take 
> advantage of that, right? No? Wait a minute, it was 1995 before MS had a 
> desktop OS that would take advantage of that.
> 

Who cares about the past? At this point in time, XP kicks buttocks, rock 
solid and runs on cheaper hardware.
Better value for the consumer, n'est ce pas?

Nicolas
0
nah1 (538)
5/28/2005 10:59:49 PM
TravelinMan wrote:

> In article <sf9f91lqu34fevpauso0p1vifk86qrlq94@4ax.com>,
>  Tom Elam <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Fri, 27 May 2005 22:01:54 GMT, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Joe, Macs are already doing what today's Macs will do, and doing it
>>>>for more people, and in more places.
>>>
>>>That's true. What's wrong with my statement?
>>>
>>
>>Nothing, my statement was supposed to read
>>
>>Joe, Wintel PC's are already doing what today's Macs will do, and
>>doing it for more people, and in more places.
> 
> 
> Two out of three isn't bad.
> 
> They 'do it' for more people in more places, but they don't do what I 
> expect from my Mac: offering the best computing platform available

Criteria? I know, they're all subjective. Nothing to see here, move along.

  with
> the greatest ease of use

Right. Same paradigm. Drag and drop, same interface in the apps that 
count and both have quirks and idiosyncrasies.
Difference: PCs are cheaper, you can make a kicka^^ PC for a fraction of 
the cost of a proprietary Mac and it will have a longer life and will be 
easier to upgrade with a faster CPU and/or MoBo.

  and lowest level of malware.

No malware on my PCs. AVs run in the background with almost no user 
interaction.

> 
> 
>>>>You are also not only stupid, you do not even know your basic history.
>>>
>>>So what part of the above history is wrong?
>>
>>The dates.  The semi-32 bit Mac with basic connectivity and limited
>>Plug and Play did not arrive until 1987-88.
> 
> 
> Even if you were right, that's pretty close to 20 years. And that's a 
> feature that Windows didn't get (sort of) until almost a decade later.

Who cares? It's there now, in full swing.

> 
> In reality, though, you're wrong. Even the SE offered connectivity and 
> PnP (although the selection of peripherals was obviously rather limited).


Stop living in the past, Ragosta, those days are gone, old man.

>>>You will undoubtedly quibble that the Mac wasn't truly 32 bit, but it 
>>>was close enough for almost everyone - far closer than anything PC users 
>>>could use at the time.
>>
>>The 386 arrived in 1985, and was a true 32 bit CPU that would multi
>>process.  It was on the market a full 2 years ahead of the Mac II.
> 
> 
> That's nice. Windows 95 appeared in (let's see if you can figure this 
> out) 1995 - and didn't even offer full 32 bit capability.

Who cares, Joe?

> 
> 
>>http://www.pcmech.com/show/processors/35/
>>
>>That's what you got wrong.  Get over it. 
> 
> 
> So you are arguing that a 386 running DOS was a 32 bit system? Or maybe 
> a 386 running Windows 1.0?

Nobody cares Joe. People want value for their money and are more savvy 
technically than ever before.
Many people are into DIY systems and pirate XP -Before you start acting 
like the fool you are and accuse me of stealing s/w, I PAY for my 
software- and/or install Linux.

Get over it.

No really, get OVER it and find something better to do with your spare 
time, like take care of your grandchildren. Mac advocacy is dead, the 
Mac lost and the mini was too little too late;)

Nicolas
0
nah1 (538)
5/28/2005 11:08:58 PM
In article <clund-B253A0.11574828052005@amstwist00.chello.com>,
 C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> >  To create a document you will use voice recognition for
> > the text,
> 
> Cumbersome and tiring. Typing is faster and more accurate.

The world record for sustained typing speed is around 150 words per 
minute.  It is easy for pretty much everyone to speak faster than that.


-- 
--Tim Smith
0
reply_in_group (13194)
5/29/2005 12:32:34 AM
In article 
<reply_in_group-981B79.17323628052005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
 Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> In article <clund-B253A0.11574828052005@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>  C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> > >  To create a document you will use voice recognition for
> > > the text,
> > 
> > Cumbersome and tiring. Typing is faster and more accurate.
> 
> The world record for sustained typing speed is around 150 words per 
> minute.  It is easy for pretty much everyone to speak faster than that.

Not if you want accurate speech recognition. Someday that will change, 
but not yet.

I saw a funny article (maybe in the WSJ?) where they timed some old guy 
using Morse Code against some kid using their slang chat language on a 
keyboard. The old guy won.
0
Nowhere (5224)
5/29/2005 1:56:10 AM
In article <Nowhere-8C86C4.20560928052005@news.central.cox.net>,
 TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> > > Cumbersome and tiring. Typing is faster and more accurate.
> > 
> > The world record for sustained typing speed is around 150 words per 
> > minute.  It is easy for pretty much everyone to speak faster than that.
> 
> Not if you want accurate speech recognition. Someday that will change, 
> but not yet.

That's why I didn't object to the "and more accurate" part of his 
complaint.  Remember, this thread was about someone's predictions for 20 
years from now.

-- 
--Tim Smith
0
reply_in_group (13194)
5/29/2005 4:00:21 AM
In article <FJ6me.38348$Ph4.826248@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
 Nasht0n <nah@nah.ca> wrote:

> Who cares about the past? At this point in time, XP kicks buttocks, rock 
> solid and runs on cheaper hardware.

And it's getting it's buttocks kicked by malware and security holes.

> Better value for the consumer, n'est ce pas?

Maybe if you're a gamer.

> Nicolas

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
5/29/2005 7:12:49 AM
C Lund wrote:

> In article <FJ6me.38348$Ph4.826248@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
>  Nasht0n <nah@nah.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Who cares about the past? At this point in time, XP kicks buttocks, rock 
>>solid and runs on cheaper hardware.
> 
> 
> And it's getting it's buttocks kicked by malware and security holes.

It has been demonstrated how easy it is to avert these attacks.
It's a good thing OS X is obscure, because the holes in Safari are big 
enough to let through a herd of elephants.
> 
> 
>>Better value for the consumer, n'est ce pas?
> 
> 
> Maybe if you're a gamer.

I'm not. I built my own computer for a few hundred bucks and I am very 
happy with it, thankyouverymuch.

Nicolas
> 
> 
>>Nicolas
> 
> 
0
nah1 (538)
5/29/2005 12:41:29 PM
In article <clund-C4F7B7.09124929052005@amstwist00.chello.com>,
 C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:

> In article <FJ6me.38348$Ph4.826248@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
>  Nasht0n <nah@nah.ca> wrote:
> 
> > Who cares about the past? At this point in time, XP kicks buttocks, rock 
> > solid and runs on cheaper hardware.
> 
> And it's getting it's buttocks kicked by malware and security holes.
> 
> > Better value for the consumer, n'est ce pas?
> 
> Maybe if you're a gamer.

....like the kid a Circuit City who was trying to sell me an ethernet 
switch instead of a router with firewall.  Apparently, he doesn't worry 
about viruses and such with his unpatched WIndows machine (too many 
games die with SP2, apparently), because he ghosts the hard drive and 
restores it every _couple of weeks_...

-- 
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.
0
cirby (1209)
5/29/2005 2:11:33 PM
"Nasht0n" <nah@nah.ca> stated in post
ZLime.38534$Ph4.841762@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 5/29/05 5:41 AM:

> C Lund wrote:
> 
>> In article <FJ6me.38348$Ph4.826248@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
>>  Nasht0n <nah@nah.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Who cares about the past? At this point in time, XP kicks buttocks, rock
>>> solid and runs on cheaper hardware.
>> 
>> 
>> And it's getting it's buttocks kicked by malware and security holes.
> 
> It has been demonstrated how easy it is to avert these attacks.

Your claims of how easy it is to avert these attacks do not fit with the
available data that so many people do *not* avoid or avert these XP attacks.
How do you account for the difference?  Do you think that most Windows users
are stupid, perhaps?

> It's a good thing OS X is obscure, because the holes in Safari are big
> enough to let through a herd of elephants.

Such as?  


-- 
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
-  Anatole France 



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
0
SNIT (24281)
5/29/2005 4:47:59 PM
In article <ZLime.38534$Ph4.841762@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
 Nasht0n <nah@nah.ca> wrote:
> C Lund wrote:
> >>Who cares about the past? At this point in time, XP kicks buttocks, rock 
> >>solid and runs on cheaper hardware.
> > And it's getting it's buttocks kicked by malware and security holes.
> It has been demonstrated how easy it is to avert these attacks.

Yeah - all you have to do is not use Windows.

> It's a good thing OS X is obscure, because the holes in Safari are big 
> enough to let through a herd of elephants.

Really. Strange nobody has done so then.

> >>Better value for the consumer, n'est ce pas?
> > Maybe if you're a gamer.
> I'm not. I built my own computer for a few hundred bucks and I am very 
> happy with it, thankyouverymuch.

Your standards must not be very high then.

> Nicolas

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
5/30/2005 8:55:42 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Where Will The Future Look Like?
What do you think the future of the Macintosh world will look like? What manifestation do you think the next generation Macs and Mac operating system will take? Just a little something I was pondering... On 2005-05-26 23:44:52 -0400, Justin <jclapp@clarku.edu> said: > What do you think the future of the Macintosh world will look like? > What manifestation do you think the next generation Macs and Mac > operating system will take? Just a little something I was pondering... Pardon me, the title should have been WHAT will the future look like On Thu, 26 May 2005 23:44:52 -0400, Justin <jclapp@clarku.edu> wrote: >What do you think the future of the Macintosh world will look like? >What manifestation do you think the next generation Macs and Mac >operating system will take? Just a little something I was pondering... The subject line is a metaphysical question beyond the realm of human intelligence. Therefore, there is no answer in this lifetime. Ask the Big Guy when you get there. Tom Justin <jclapp@clarku.edu> wrote: > What do you think the future of the Macintosh world will look like? > What manifestation do you think the next generation Macs and Mac > operating system will take? Just a little something I was pondering... What Will The Future Look Like? We'll probably see iSightcasts pretty soon, and hopefully an iMovies player to view, buy, organize them. Apple will ship an Intel based WiMax A/V Airport B...

I'm Looking for code that will populate a database with 500,000 junk docs to test dblookup speed? Any Idea what the code might look Like TIA
I'm Looking for code that will populate a database with 500,000 junk docs to test dblookup speed? Any Idea what the code might look Like TIA <-=meak=-@ammy.com.invalid> wrote in message news:BBtmb.41799$h47.2252@bignews4.bellsouth.net... > I'm Looking for code that will populate a database with 500,000 junk docs to test dblookup speed? Any Idea what the code might look Like TIA > > How far did you get ? Post up your own attempt to do this and then we will point out where you are going wrong. I will give you a starter :- Write an agent in script ...

I'm Looking for code that will populate a database with 500,000 junk docs to test dblookup speed? Any Idea what the code might look Like TIA
I'm Looking for code that will populate a database with 500,000 junk docs to test dblookup speed? Any Idea what the code might look Like TIA ...

I'm Looking for code that will populate a database with 500,000 junk docs to test dblookup speed? Any Idea what the code might look Like TIA
I'm Looking for code that will populate a database with 500,000 junk docs to test dblookup speed? Any Idea what the code might look Like TIA Off the top of my head with no testing: Create an agent. Run from Actions Menu. Sub Initialize Dim ns As New NotesSession Dim dbCurrent As NotesDatabase Dim docJunk As NotesDocument Dim SomeValue As Variant Dim x As Long Set dbCurrent = ns.CurrentDatabase For x = 1 To 500000 Set docJunk = dbCurrent.CreateDocument ' Set some fields on the document before saving it. Call docJunk.Replac...

You can buy a diamond ring that looks like it would have a real stone in it for not much more than $30! Additionally, gold-plated necklaces and silver-plated necklaces will have the look of real gol
You can buy a diamond ring that looks like it would have a real stone in it for not much more than $30! Additionally, gold-plated necklaces and silver-plated necklaces will have the look of real gold and sterling silver necklaces! Needless to say, there are a whole bunch of different options when searching for fashion jewellery that you most likely will not have trouble finding something that you like! http://www.dojewelry.net These are the latest items we have brought back from the jewelry shows. This is an eclectic mix of high-end unique items and our standard fare Stainless Steel jewelry. http://www.dojewelry.net/New_Jewelry.html Huge selection of Stainless Steel Popular Pendants in Various designs are available at dojewelry.net. Please click the image to see more details. All of our stainless steel jewellry reflect the latest trends in the fashion industry, no matter what specific style you=92re looking to sell, we=92re confident you=92ll find the perfect trendy fashion jewelry to put in your store. http://www.dojewelry.net/Stainless_Steel_Popular_Pendants.htm Where do females wear this type of jewellery, though? Many women choose to wear fashion jewellery at various places that they go and some individuals choose to have a piece of fashion jewellery on whenever they step out their front door! But some popular events and places that women go to where they love to put on these types of fashion accessories include hip-hop clubs, dates, parties, as well as family events, hol...

What Will the PC of 2005 Look Like?
by Martyn Williams and Tom Krazit, IDG News Service Consumers thinking about buying a new computer in 2005 might be better off putting off their purchase until 2006. With few major changes in PC hardware or software due over the next year, the PC of 2005 is likely to look awfully similar to the PC of today. Big changes aren't due until 2006, when the Longhorn operating system from Microsoft, 64-bit applications, and optical drives based on the Blu-ray Disc and HD-DVD formats will become available to the average user. Still, that doesn't mean there are no technologies worth looking out for if you do plan to upgrade in 2005. Chipping In: Intel and Advanced Micro Devices are expected to unveil dual-core chips -- which contain two processor cores on a single piece of silicon -- by the end of 2005, although they probably won't appear in mainstream PCs until well into 2006, says Stephen Baker, director of industry analysis at NPD Techworld in Reston, Virginia. Intel will likely boost the cache memory in its Pentium 4 processor and AMD is expected to increase the clock speed of its Athlon 64, but these changes will be incremental. A more substantial shift in processor performance, the move to 64-bit computing, probably also won't happen next year, even though Microsoft is expected to finally release a 64-bit version of Windows XP in early 2005. Bigger changes can be expected in chip sets, which handle the flow of communication be...

Microsoft JVM looks like it will return!
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/apr04/04-02SunAgreementPR.asp - Mitch On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 18:05:26 -0400, "Michel Gallant" <neutron@NOSPAMistar.ca> wrote or quoted : >http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/apr04/04-02SunAgreementPR.asp that's a good thing. Wherever MS can do better than Sun, it will put pressure on Sun to improve. It was too bad to waste all the work MS did on their JVM. -- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming. See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java G...

Guesses as to what the new iMac will look like.
I was asked by someone what I thought the new iMac would look like... well, it is just a guess and about 5-10 minutes of playing with images, but here it is: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/new_imac.jpg>. Of course, that is not a full aluminum enclosure, but that is so 2006... and the iPhone image was an easy one to find and manipulate. :) Oh, and before someone says I ripped off the idea - yeah, I think I saw something similar somewhere else, but I could not quickly find it when talking about guesses as to what it might look like. :) -- God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority? In article <C2DD5EF2.8A578%CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > I was asked by someone what I thought the new iMac would look like... well, > it is just a guess and about 5-10 minutes of playing with images, but here > it is: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/new_imac.jpg>. > > Of course, that is not a full aluminum enclosure, but that is so 2006... and > the iPhone image was an easy one to find and manipulate. :) > > Oh, and before someone says I ripped off the idea - yeah, I think I saw > something similar somewhere else, but I could not quickly find it when > talking about guesses as to what it might look like. :) Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-d_CHY92Aw For the record, I don't think Apple would go with the hardare design of a cell phone and use it f...

Behold, the font for my band will look like this...
....if only I could find a font that looked like this... Here is only a capital T. Note the exponential curves on the right and left of the top of the glyph. Has anyone ever seen anything like this? [Ignore letter fill. Letter shape is the only thing that's important. Heck, ignore letter shape, too. Just go with general impression and see if any font you've ever seen fits the bill...] http://www.robertks.com/t.gif For some ideas about what the full logo should look like, with a bunch of fonts that are close but no cigar, see http://www.robertks.com/fontcompare.php?font=%2Fhome%2Frob...

Looks like Tiger will have Korn shell...yeah!
Hi Folks, Yeah, for old farts like me that spent years on SVR4 UNIX the inclusion of Korn shell is a good thing. I wonder what version will deliver...... JC Joseph Crowe <jcrowe@sensation.com> wrote: > Hi Folks, > Yeah, for old farts like me that spent years on SVR4 UNIX > the inclusion of Korn shell is a good thing. I wonder what > version will deliver...... Awesome! Well, young farts (24) like it too... I learned it in school and have used it since. Think I'm the only one at my job that does... others seem to prefer csh/tcsh (bah!). I was already plann...

What relying on Private Health Insurers will Look Like
The Des Moines Register March 5, 2007 Mandating private health insurance is misguided Taxpayer-financed health coverage is a better approach. By the Register Editorial Board It sounds simple enough: Get everyone insured by requiring them to purchase health insurance. So-called "individual mandates" are part of Massachusetts' plan to get all residents covered. They are included in a proposal by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. In a recent conversation about health reform in Iowa, state Sen. Jack Hatch said he supports individual mandates because they inject "personal responsibility" into health care. But forcing people to purchase private-sector insurance is far from simple, especially considering the government absolutely must ensure the coverage it makes people buy is adequate. Proceeding with this idea would be a mistake. Just a few weeks ago, this editorial page told the story of Jan and Gary Clausen, who didn't have the option of buying health insurance through an employer. They went out on their own and bought AARP- endorsed plans for about $700 a month. They were left with more than $200,000 in medical bills after Gary was diagnosed with cancer! Some insurance. If the state is going to force people to purchase insurance, it must guarantee necessary services are covered and the bills are paid when health disasters strike. It must require insurance companies to protect Iowans against catastrophic costs. Of course, that's where ...

Looks like Java's future is secure
Based on this recent article, it look like Java isn't going anywhere for a while: <http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20100330/tc_nf/72477> "Java To Flourish "... Sun's Java products appear poised to continue to flourish. In a recent report on Oracle's road map for Java, IDC estimated that Java will maintain a close and busy relationship with eight million developers worldwide -- right across its many varieties and supported form factors. IDC analysts also note that Oracle has forged its entire software strategy around the Java platform." -- Lew You a...

What will universal healthcare be like? Just look at the VA
With national elections coming late next year, it is inevitable that the topic of socialized medicine will again rear its ugly head. Much ado is made about the 40,000,000 Americans who do not have health insurance, which makes the fact that there are 260,000,000 Americans that do seem insignificant. Of course the 40,000,000 figure likely includes many young and healthy individuals with low risk of serious illness who don�t believe that health insurance would be cost-effective. But that wouldn�t make a good talking point. If one wants to know how a national health care system would operate, one needs to merely look at the systems our government has in place. The most prominent form of socialized medicine in our country is the Department of Veterans Affairs. With 235,000 employees and a budget of more than $60 billion, the VA is the federal government�s second largest department, second only to the Department of Defense. It�s purpose it to provide benefits, disability payments, and health care to military members once they�ve left the service. The medical care provided at VA facilities is generally considered to be top notch. That is, if you can even get to see a doctor at all. For those of us who have private health insurance, we can typically see a doctor for any reason within a week or two, depending how busy that doctor�s office is. Not so with VA health care, or any other socialized health system for that matter. Private insurance yields considerable flexibility and a ...

Vista looks like it will make the current ship date
Bout time http://news.com.com/Microsoft+sets+Vista+prices%2C+expands+testing/2100-1016_3-6112260.html?tag=nefd.top In article <46asf2lere11186vo5drr2miiqb8l75tuf@4ax.com>, tom_elam@earthlink.net wrote: > Bout time > > http://news.com.com/Microsoft+sets+Vista+prices%2C+expands+testing/2100-1016_3 > -6112260.html?tag=nefd.top It's gone into RC1 stage also. MSDN customers (me) will have it this week. Meanwhile I have the August CTP build 5536. 5536 is very nice, and is about to replace XP on my main desktop system here. Mike In article <46asf2lere11186vo5drr2miiqb8l75tuf@4ax.com>, tom_elam@earthlink.net wrote: > Bout time > > http://news.com.com/Microsoft+sets+Vista+prices%2C+expands+testing/2100-1016_3 > -6112260.html?tag=nefd.top Why are you posting this in a Mac advocacy newsgroup? What are you, some king of dumb-fuck? Mojo wrote: > In article <46asf2lere11186vo5drr2miiqb8l75tuf@4ax.com>, > tom_elam@earthlink.net wrote: > >> Bout time >> >> http://news.com.com/Microsoft+sets+Vista+prices%2C+expands+testing/2100-1016_3 >> -6112260.html?tag=nefd.top > > Why are you posting this in a Mac advocacy newsgroup? Why didn't you ever ask Mac Advocates why they're always posting about Vista to this group? [snip] -- "But SunOS was just a purchased OS. Like Apple, Sun purchased and [sic] OS and then developed it. No more." -- Alan "Wrong Again"...

What will universal healthcare be like? Just look at the VA #2
With national elections coming late next year, it is inevitable that the topic of socialized medicine will again rear its ugly head. Much ado is made about the 40,000,000 Americans who do not have health insurance, which makes the fact that there are 260,000,000 Americans that do seem insignificant. Of course the 40,000,000 figure likely includes many young and healthy individuals with low risk of serious illness who don�t believe that health insurance would be cost-effective. But that wouldn�t make a good talking point. If one wants to know how a national health care system would operate, one needs to merely look at the systems our government has in place. The most prominent form of socialized medicine in our country is the Department of Veterans Affairs. With 235,000 employees and a budget of more than $60 billion, the VA is the federal government�s second largest department, second only to the Department of Defense. It�s purpose it to provide benefits, disability payments, and health care to military members once they�ve left the service. The medical care provided at VA facilities is generally considered to be top notch. That is, if you can even get to see a doctor at all. For those of us who have private health insurance, we can typically see a doctor for any reason within a week or two, depending how busy that doctor�s office is. Not so with VA health care, or any other socialized health system for that matter. Private insurance yields considerable flexibility and a ...

Computing 2016 What Will Version 15 of SAS Look Like?
Computing, 2016: What Won't Be Possible? James Rajotte for The New York Times Jon Kleinberg, professor of computer science at Cornell, sees "a revolution in measurement" in the use of computers to analyze social networks. - By STEVE LOHR<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/peop= le/l/steve_lohr/index.html?inline=3Dnyt-per> Published: October 31, 2006 Computer science is not only a comparatively young field, but also one that has had to prove it is really science. Skeptics in academia would often say that after Alan Turing described the concept of the...

What will PC graphics look like 10 years from now?
What will PC graphics look like 10 years from now? Doom 3 is roughly 10 years old - so you can put Doom I and Doom 3 side-by-side and see what 10 years of hardware/software progress looks like. Did anyone really imagine or believe that graphics would look as clean and three-deminsional as they do today? What will graphics look like in 10 years? Will we even be using monitors? "lloydgm" <usenet.lloydgm@choicemail1.com> wrote in message news:883a2394.0408101903.5d8f111c@posting.google.com... > What will PC graphics look like 10 years from now? Doom 3 is roughly > 10...

Future computers: when computers take over, what will the world become like?
The Far Future With Computers What will happen to humans when computers take over? Hannele Tervola COMPUTERS DEVELOP QUICK AND INFLUENCE LIFE HUGELY Now, year 2010, it seems inevitable that the future of the human kind will be hugely influenced by the development and use of computers and other technological devices. Even already now technology is one of the biggest elements of modern city life and in the future its effect will be much greater. Already now the logic of ordinary people is influenced by their views of what computer logic and the hard rationality used in developing compute...

Looks like the 11g name is going to stick ... we will know for sure tomorrow
It's the world's worst secret that 11g is being announced or at least the timetable for it's rollout clarified at OOW. I was in the Extreme security track saturday and sunday ( pre conference workshop ). Several oracle people kept saying 11g. In a side conversation a couple of them noted they think it's going to be 12f for Fusion after that. Lots of the development changes will be concentrated on the database side at making Fusion implementations and patching easier and more automated. At least that's my impression of the direction. "hpuxrac" > In a sid...

I like Wizardry. What else will I like?
I only ever played two RPGs - Wizardry 7 & 8 and enjoyed them both very much. Without starting a flame war, what other RPGs will I like? Hmm, what did I like about those? Exploration, more than battle (and perhaps magic rather than simple strength/dexterity/etc - if well done (as it seemed to be in Wizardry)). A bit of puzzle solving wouldn't hurt. Character advancement, with truly distinctive character traits. Single player, something to keep me busy for a while and it must hold my interest, so not just repetitive, ho-hum, same old-same old battles. Good auto-mapping. Anything set...

Looking for free font that looks like...
Hello, I'm looking for a free font that looks like this: http://philsfonts.com/detail.html?sku=FF01102502P2 Can you give me that font? Thanks! ...

Anyone know when SP4.0 is due...looks like it will fix some of my problems.
??? Typically SolidWorks will not even provide an estimated date. All I can tell you is the pre-release of this SP is not even out yet. A limited pre-release usually comes out 1 to 4 weeks ahead of a SP. Brad pixleys@comcast.net wrote: > ??? > 2nd Tuesday of Next week. It was supposed to be released on the 29th of February but they forgot about leap year so you'll have to wait till then. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast ...

looks like in PIL, resize() will give high quality thumbnails than thumbnail()
In PIL, since thumbnail() first makes a draft copy of the image, and then resize it, so thumbnail() can run a lot faster than resize() because draft() seems a lot faster when resizing from very big images to small images... (such as the original image is 3000 x 2000, and it can make a draft really quickly to 375 x 250, and then resize to, say 200 x 133 as a thumbnail) However, the double resizing probably will make a thumbnail with a lower quality than if it is directly resizing from the original... as each resizing involves some approximation. however, i tried directly using resize() and i...

GUI will looks like different, if GUI is executed on different MATLAB Versions
Hello! I've programmed a MATLAB GUI. On my PC there is a release version 7.0.0.1... and I'm working at the Technical University Berlin with a 7.4.0.287. On both versions plotting into an axes object will not change the axes dimensions. Unfortunately, on the PC of a friend of mine (7.0.1.15) and at the HMI (Hahn Meitner Institut) (7.1.0.246), plotting into the axes object affects the axes dimensions (is bigger, looses the squared size). (plotting command: imagesc, and the image is a squared matrix) Futhermore, there is a problem in one version, when a function call has empty br...

Web resources about - What Will The Future Look Like? WAS: Where Will The Future Look Like? - comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Digital Marketing And Social Media Blog - The Future Buzz
The Future Buzz is the digital marketing and social media blog of Adam Singer, covering everything media, marketing and PR.

Legal Futures - Market intelligence for firms of the future
The number of personal injury claims management companies (CMCs) has fallen below 1,000, it has emerged, down from 2,300 at the start of 2013. ...

Phil of the Future - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Phil of the Future is an American sitcom that originally aired on Disney Channel from June 18, 2004, to August 19, 2006 for a total of two seasons. ...

Apple shares details & photos of Campus 2 ‘Theatre’ where it will hold future product launches
... shots and most of the new details surround the on-site auditorium separate from the main building, where the company will indeed hold future ...

Brands Are Making Packages the Media of the Future
Consumers may keep finding ways to avoid ads, and retailers are making it harder for brands to get displays into stores. But packaged-goods marketers ...

This could be the food of the future—if you can handle it
This is the same feeling all those Blue Apron customers get, right? (credit: Jason Plautz) The boxes at my door were plastered with red drawings ...

BMW's Vision Next 100 concept celebrates past, predicts future
Filed under: Green , BMW , Emerging Technologies , Technology , Sedan , Autonomous , Concept Cars , Future Created for the brand's 100th birthday, ...

SAVAK releasing debut LP 'Best of Luck in Future Endeavors' in May (listen to "Reaction"), playing SXSW ...
The band, featuring members of Obits, Holy Fuck, The Make-Up, also play three NYC shows this spring.

Nissan has a wild vision of how electric cars will be used in the future
In the future, your electric car may be a lot more than just a means of transportation. In a new video published by Nissan, the company shows ...

Amy Adams on working with David O. Russell again: ‘Not in the near future, no’
... important than movies.” She wouldn’t, she says, want to work with David O. Russell again – at least not any time soon. “Not in the near future, ...

Resources last updated: 3/8/2016 2:43:05 PM